I think the bottom line is, there was no bad intent, but the rules, which can
be interpreted in various ways regarding remote should be clarified. No audio
or visual stream of operations should be allowed in a contest, except for multi
op teams who are at least in part remote, and then only to each other. It's a
bad idea period. Ray shouldn't be DQed, but he should have pulled the plug on
the stream, the second he was aware of the spotting. There should be an
agreement to change it to a check log. Besides, do we really need Twitch for
contesters?73Steve KL7SB
-------- Original message --------From: Sterling Mann <kawfey@gmail.com> Date:
3/12/20 7:38 PM (GMT-08:00) To: donovanf@starpower.net Cc:
"CQ-Contest@contesting.com" <cq-contest@contesting.com> Subject: Re:
[CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting Frank, we have differing
opinions regarding the judgement of the W2RE'sactions and the intent of the
rules.His CQs, exchanges, and solicitations were not relayed over theinternet.
*"Contactsmade through repeaters, digipeaters, or gateways are not permitted.
Thisapplies to all forms of active relays or repeaters"* is saying the
contactmay only take place without relays. No contact was made using the
stream.To do this, an S&P who could not hear W2RE but W2RE could hear the
S&Perwould have to entirely use the audio of the stream to complete the
contact.However, livestreams are always on a fairly significant delay
(typically30s), so one could not make a real-time QSO with him solely by
listening tohim on the stream. https://youtu.be/aydTZN4nLfU?t=20005 is one case
wheresomeone said "love the youtube channel" but I guarantee the S&Per made
theQSO entirely via amateur radio due to this delay.Nor was he soliciting
contacts via the stream. Solicitation implies that hewas asking people to work
him on a non-amateur means of communication, butI don't think that's the case
here. To solicit a QSO, he would need to givea potential contact his frequency.
Arguably he could have also said "findme on 20m" or "find my spots" and that
may have been a violation. He saysthat he's at the bottom of the band here:
https://youtu.be/aydTZN4nLfU?t=97and to look on the dx cluster here:
https://youtu.be/aydTZN4nLfU?t=623. Ido think saying that is not compliant to
the rules, but I don't thinkposting a stream of his operation is automatically
solicitation.The video does not show his frequency, which would have been a
clearviolation, but others independently posted his run freq to the chat
afterfinding it on the cluster. Ideally, that should have been deleted, but
Idon't think W2RE is responsible for what other people are saying.Personally,
I'm in agreement with others that say an unlimited categorywould be good here.
Ideally the self-spotting rule would not apply tounlimited, keeping us from
having to think too hard about whatself-spotting is.Additionally, Ray seems to
be aware of the chat in the beginning but lateron, as they discuss what
frequency he's on, he seems to ignore it. It mayhave been put out of his sight,
in which case he's not responsible forviewers conspiring together to work him.
At least I don't think he is. Butthis is where the problem has it's greatest
merit - does the stream givehim an advantage over other operators? Averaged out
over time, I don'treally think it does.The only rule I could see him
potentially violating is giving stations thatwork him a non-amateur means of
verifying the information in their QSO. AnS&Per might botch the QSO, be
watching the stream, wait 30s after the QSO,and hear Ray "repeat" it on stream.
But is that on Ray, or on the other op?I would argue the S&Per is breaking the
rules because that person is usinga non-amateur means to complete the QSO,
exactly like if the S&Per textedW2RE what his exchange is. It's analogous to a
gun manufacturer beingliable for deaths caused by their guns. The catch is in
the texting case,W2RE is an accomplice to the S&Pers violation. On a stream, is
W2RE anaccomplice in the same way? You would have to say that W2REs purpose
forthe stream is to give his S&Pers a second chance, but the evidence
doesn'tlead me to that conclusion.Jeez. I spend way too much time writing
emails on this list. I'm sorry towrite a brick of text but this is CQ-contest,
and it's the one place on theworld wide web full of other contesters where
discussions like these can behashed out into action.-Sterling N0SSCOn Thu, Mar
12, 2020 at 8:36 PM <donovanf@starpower.net> wrote:> T his video of the RHR
Live Stream reveals violations of four General> Rules for all ARRL Contests:>>>
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aydTZN4nLfU>>>>> What are the specific violations shown
in the video?>>>> 1. CQs (i.e., soliciting a contact) were relayed via the
internet> 2. Exchanges (a necessary half of every QSO) were relayed via
the> internet> 3. end-of-QSO solications (i.e., QRZs) were relayed via the
internet> 4. His 14155 frequency was shown multiple times during the live
stream> 5.>>> What specific General Rules for all ARRL Contests were
violated?>>>>> 3.9. Contacts made through repeaters, digipeaters, or gateways
are not> permitted>>> 1. 3.9.1. This applies to all forms of active relays
or repeaters.> 2. 3.10. The use of non-Amateur Radio means of communication
(for> example, Internet or telephone) to solicit a contact (or contacts)
during> the contest period is not permitted.> 3. 3.14. In contests where
spotting nets are permissible, spotting> your own station or requesting another
station to spot you is not> permitted.>>> 73> Frank> W3LPL>>>>>> 1.>
2.> 3.> 4.> 5.> 6.> 1.> 7.> 8.> 9.>
_______________________________________________> CQ-Contest mailing list>
CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>_______________________________________________CQ-Contest
mailing
listCQ-Contest@contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest